Monday, 27 August 2012

The trouble with Rupert

There
are times when I wonder if we’re being had; if some things that we shake our
heads at in disbelief are, indeed, intended to do precisely that, rendering us
impotent in the face of them.

A
case in point is the latest furoré surrounding Prince Harry – and more to the
point, the claims of the Sun to be championing freedom of the press by
publishing the already infamous pictures of him in the altogether.

This
was followed by The Dirty Digger himself tweeting a sort of ‘keep yer pecker
up’ message to the doubtlessly somewhat red-faced royal himself. Except, of
course, since it was a tweet, it was public And it didn’t involve any sort of
apology.

The
theory is that British newspapers cannot simply publish anything and
everything. In the case of privacy, they have to have a public interest.

Now
the fact that the pictures of Harry were already to be found on the internet
doesn’t actually change that.

Nor
does the whinging and whining from some in the tabloid world that they’re
‘under attack’ and ‘journalism has gone to the dogs’ because of Lord Leveson’s
inquiry into media ethics.

Let’s
be clear: trashy ‘celebrity’ gossip and stories are not ‘great journalism’. And
– the real nitty gritty – there is rarely anything to suggest that such things
are in the public interest.

Because
the public interest is not a synonym for some of the public are interested.

A
quick example.

Some
years ago – in 1992, to be precise – Tim Yeo was a junior minister in John
Major’s government.

At
the Conservative Party conference that autumn, he stood up and railed against
single parents. He’d made other comments, in public, about the importance of
the family.

Yet
before the year was out, Yeo was revealed to be having an affair (he was
married) and the single woman that he was having an affair with was pregnant by
him.

Now
that story was in the public interest, since it revealed a politician indulging
in the classic game of ‘not do as I do, but do as I say’.

Fast
forward to 2002. Quiz show host Angus Deayton was revealed to have had
consensual sex (shocking, isn’t it?) with a woman who claimed to have been a
prostitute. He was also alleged to have used cocaine.

Yet
Deayton, who subsequently lost his job presenting the satirical quiz, Have I
Got News for You, had never used his position to suggest that there was a certain way
in which anyone else should behave.

It’s
doubtful that anyone could even have tried the ‘but he’s a role model’
justification either, since it’s difficult to imagine to whom he would have
been such.

Some
of the public might have been interested in stories of a grown man having
consensual sex (the drug use didn’t seem to interest anyone), yet a poll by the
BBC itself showed that 75% of respondents didn’t think he should be sacked.

So
what was ‘The Public Interest’ there?

There
wasn’t any.

Prince
Harry is a 27. He’s a soldier. He’s not married.

He
was on holiday. He was having fun – in private.

He
didn’t do anything illegal.

Now
I’m nobody’s arch-monarchist, but playing strip billiards really isn’t a story.
Not a thing about it screams ‘public interest’.

So
where Rupert Murdoch’s now defunct News of the World tried to justify its
exposé of Max Mosely’s consensual spanking sessions by pretending there was a
Nazi theme – sins of the fathers ‘n’ all, apparently, for the Bible-publishing
publisher – now Murdoch’s Sun is claiming that publishing the pictures of Harry
is a blow for press freedom.

Such
a pity the Sun couldn’t have found an actual story to make a stand over,
rather than something that required pretty much no journalism at all, since it
was already splashed over the internet.

In
other words, it wasn’t even news.

The
‘story’ became the Sun’s publication of the pictures.

While
there are clearly issues with internet publication of all manner of gossip and
salacious tittle-tattle, that does not justify publication.

It’s
not merely a sad state of affairs, but a tawdry one, and something that is
deeply detrimental to good journalism and a decent level of public discourse,
when publishers and editors keep journalists trawling through social media to
turn some celebrity’s tweets into the next day’s splash.

And
the claims that, if the rags are not allowed to print gossip and scandal, all newspapers
will die, is also crass – not least because the same papers do actually tend to
make big bucks.

Indeed,
the biggest selling point of the Sun is its sports coverage – and
football in particular. Not even the gossip.

That
does raise the question of the audience, but let’s set aside playing chicken
and egg on this one for today.

And
in all this, there is too the question of privacy.

First,
for all that some of their defenders might moan about celebrities being
protected, the tabloids (and various gossip magazines) have never restricted
their coverage to the famous.

But
even if they did, why would being famous mean that you are expected to give up
a private life that is – well, private?

Is
it the money? If so, how much do you have to earn before you can expect some
intrusion? How much can you be in public life before it become ‘news’ to
publish details of your sexual proclivities just for the sake of it?

Well,
as noted, that’s irrelevant, given the appearance of Jo and Joanna Public
within the pages of tabloids and magazines too.

The
publication of the Harry pictures in the Sun could not, some say, have occurred
without the okay of Murdoch himself.

Presumably,
this is his idea of a statement of ‘I’m bigger than you’ as Leveson continues.

That
Hunt should refuse to even support the established principle of the need for a
legitimate (or even pretend) public interest justification is hardly a shock.

Hunt
has consistently shown that he’s yet another of Murdoch’s stream of political
bum boys, ready to do anything for the god-almighty Digger.

But
that he does this now, after everything that has come spewing out about his
behaviour in connection with the proposed BSkyB deal, really does suggest that
he has absolutely no shame. But then again, he’d have resigned long ago if he
had.

Murdoch
the holy knight (a gift from Pope John Paul II, which presumably had nothing to
do with his being divorced and remarried) may have been tottering in the last
18 months and, on the basis of his Leveson appearance, have lost his memory
(with Ernest Saunders-like convenience), but this has nothing whatsoever to do
with freedom of the press.

This
is all about trying to embarrass the Establishment that he claims to dislike,
but which he has yearned to be part of for years.

And
it is all about trying to show, again, that he is still in charge.

Harry,
like so many others for the Murdoch press and the tabloids in general, is just
mere collateral damage.

And
it indicates, yet again, that for all the claims of some editors and
publishers, they cannot be trusted to self regulate.

No comments:

Post a Comment

About Me

London-based journalist, writer, photographer and artist, with one Other Half and three cats.
This blog is about all sorts of things, but mostly reviews. My interests include comics and opera (and even comic opera), cats, tattoos and art.
100% personal. Non-PC. No 'party line'.
You can see some of my photography at http://amandakendalart.tumblr.com
Redbubble store now at www.redbubble.com/people/amandakendal